Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

Guys obviously there are a huge (ahem) difference of opinion on what to make of the Great Lew Hoad. I'm of the opinion that Lew Hoad is one of the great players and perhaps the most talented player of all time, with the key word perhaps here because others can be included in the discussion. Please discuss.

And yes I am doing this because of the disagreement but also because I do believe Hoad should be discussed here because at the very worst he is an interesting and super fascinating figure in the history of tennis. He had been called the GOAT to vastly overrated. Many feel at his best he was unbeatable but because of his style he could also lose to anyone when he was somewhat off.

Guys obviously there are a huge (ahem) difference of opinion on what to make of the Great Lew Hoad. I'm of the opinion that Lew Hoad is one of the great players and perhaps the most talented player of all time, with the key word perhaps here because others can be included in the discussion. Please discuss.

And yes I am doing this because of the disagreement but also because I do believe Hoad should be discussed here because at the very worst he is an interesting and super fascinating figure in the history of tennis. He had been called the GOAT to vastly overrated. Many feel at his best he was unbeatable but because of his style he could also lose to anyone when he was somewhat off.

Click to expand...

I believe that Hoad, Gonzalez and Laver were the strongest ever when "on".

Hoad was the most inconsistent of the three. A good example could be that he played very well against Gonzalez in the 1959 world series but lost several matches to Cooper and Anderson while Gonzalez beat them in every match.

I believe that Hoad, Gonzalez and Laver were the strongest ever when "on".

Hoad was the most inconsistent of the three. A good example could be that he played very well against Gonzalez in the 1959 world series but lost several matches to Cooper and Anderson while Gonzalez beat them in every match.

Click to expand...

Here we disagree. Hoad beat all three opponents on the 1959 American tour, which was not a true round-robin and was regarded as a head to head by Gonzales himself, his only loss in such a tour.
Hoad's record in the Ampol World Championship was 34 to 13, first place.

Can someone give the known numbers of Hoad for 1959, not selective results but all tournaments played plus the main hth tours? From what i have read in other threads, he did well considering the strong opposition, but wasn't dominant. It seems, that all the top contenders in 1959, Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall and even Sedgman were pretty close, and indeed the contemporary rankings by Kramer, Anderson and other promoters and players were anything but unanimous. If i am right, then Hoad ranked from 1 to 4, regarding the rankings, and mostly Gonzalez was ranked Nr. 1.

Here we disagree. Hoad beat all three opponents on the 1959 American tour, which was not a true round-robin and was regarded as a head to head by Gonzales himself, his only loss in such a tour.
Hoad's record in the Ampol World Championship was 34 to 13, first place.

Click to expand...

You forgot that Hoad lost the American tour to Gonzalez.

We not only disagree HERE ! We disagree almost in all matters!

An exception could be that we agree that Rosewall was stronger than Peter Cawthorn, Ray Keldie and Vince Spadea....

Can someone give the known numbers of Hoad for 1959, not selective results but all tournaments played plus the main hth tours? From what i have read in other threads, he did well considering the strong opposition, but wasn't dominant. It seems, that all the top contenders in 1959, Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall and even Sedgman were pretty close, and indeed the contemporary rankings by Kramer, Anderson and other promoters and players were anything but unanimous. If i am right, then Hoad ranked from 1 to 4, regarding the rankings, and mostly Gonzalez was ranked Nr. 1.

Click to expand...

I gave all the tournaments I could see from McCauley's book that I could see that Hoad participated in.

Can someone give the known numbers of Hoad for 1959, not selective results but all tournaments played plus the main hth tours? From what i have read in other threads, he did well considering the strong opposition, but wasn't dominant. It seems, that all the top contenders in 1959, Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall and even Sedgman were pretty close, and indeed the contemporary rankings by Kramer, Anderson and other promoters and players were anything but unanimous. If i am right, then Hoad ranked from 1 to 4, regarding the rankings, and mostly Gonzalez was ranked Nr. 1.

Click to expand...

I think that Joe McCauley has given almost all events. An exception are those few (4 man) tournaments of (probably) July when Rosewall beat Gonzalez twice.

I guess that Dan is the first and only man who ranked Hoad first for 1959...

Hoad was obviously a great physical specimen who could inspire awe with his almost inhuman shotmaking. Was his best better than anyone else? Possibly but we cannot ever prove that. However the fact I think it is a possibility show how talented I believe he was. I would not write that about Djokovic for example or Federer although I think they are very talented players. But it begs the question was the reason that he reached these great levels also a function of his high risk style and perhaps others like perhaps a Frankie Kovacs could have reached these heights if they played the same sort of high risk style. Bobby Riggs for example thought Kovacs' best was arguably the best and some others also believe that.

It's clear in majors that Hoad was not invincible. In classic majors he was 2-2 with his rival Ken Rosewall and he had poor record in the Pro Majors. To be fair I believe he was perhaps past his best when he reached the finals of the Pro Majors in the 1960's.

What the hell has personal differences over 1960 got to do with making a ranking list of the best professional players of 1959?

23-23 is for all their 1959 matches, yes? I believe Hoad won 15 out of 28 on the 4-man world pro tour, but Gonzales was unbeaten against both Cooper and Anderson, while Hoad lost enough matches to Cooper and Anderson for Gonzales to win the 4-man tour.

Let's look at 1959 from Joe's book. These are the tournaments Hoad entered.

Victorian Pro Champs
Hoad beat Trabert after a bye.
Loss to Gonzalez next round.
Loss to Segura for third place

Queensland Pro Champs
Hoad beat Cooper in first round
Loss to Trabert in the next round.
Gonzalez beat Hoad for third place

Western Australian Pro Champs
Impressive win.
Hoad beat Segura, Rosewall and Cooper to win the tournament

NSW Pro Champs
Hoad beat Anderson in the quarters after a bye
Loss to Gonzalez in the next round.
Rosewall beat Hoad for third place

South Australian Pro Champs
Hoad beat Rose, Trabert and Rosewall to win the tournament

World Pro Champs also US Pro
Hoad beat Riggs in quarters after bye
Hoad beat Segura
Hoad lost to Gonzalez in straights

Masters Round Robin
Gonzalez and Hoad finished with identical w-l if 5-1 but Gonzalez won the tournament because he defeated Hoad

O'Keefe Pro Champs
Hoad beat Rose in the first round
Sedgman beat Hoad in semi
Gonzalez won the tournament by beating Sedgman

Tournament of Champions
Impressive win by Hoad in defeating Anderson, Rosewall and Gonzalez to win the tournament

Hoad played a tour which according to McCauley was won by Trabert. Rosewall and Sedgman also played.

French Pro Champs
Hoad beat Molloy in the first round easily
Hoad beat Rose in the quarters
Hoad lost to Sedgman in four sets in the semi.
Trabert won the tournament over Sedgman
Hoad beat Rosewall for third

London Pro Indoor Champs at Wembley
Hoad beat Horn-first round
Hoad lost to Segura in the quarters
Hoad beat Rose for fifth

Paris Round Robin
Hoad finished with a 1-2 record with Sedgman, Rosewall and Trabert participating. Sedgman won the tournament with a 3-0 record with Rosewall second at 2-1.

South Australian Round Robin
Hoad won with a 3-0 record Sedgman 2-1 Gonzalez 1-2 and Hartwig 0-3

NSW Pro Champs
Hoad beat Rose in the first round
Hoad beat Anderson in the Semi
Hoad lost to Gonzalez in the final in straight sets

Queensland Pro Champs
Hoad beat Cooper in the first round
Rosewall beat Hoad in the semi
Rosewall beat Gonzalez in the final

Judge for yourself if 1959 is dominant.

Yes I didn't include the tour but you already know the record there which is 42-20 won-lost with Gonzalez, Anderson and Cooper. Gonzalez finished 47-15 but lost his head to head 13-15 to Hoad.

Here's the stats
Hoad in tournament play in 1959 according to McCauley
Three tournaments won in thirteen attempts.
A 25-14 record.

If you count the tournament in early 1960 as part of 1959
Then it's four tournaments in fourteen attempts
A 29-15 record.

He lost a tour in which Trabert, Rosewall and Sedgman participated.

He finished 42-20 on a tour with Gonzalez, Anderson and Cooper
Gonzalez had the best record at 47-15 on this tour but lost 13-15 to Hoad in their individual encounters. Cooper was third at 21-40 and Anderson was fourth at 13-48.

There was also another tour in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Oslo, Lyon, Marseille and Berlin. Hoad finished third. Sedgman won with 18 wins, 9 losses followed closely by Rosewall with 17 wins, 10 losses, Hoad far behind with 11 and Trabert trailing everyone with 8.

Is this a dominant year?

Click to expand...

Just some information on Hoad's year of 1959 in which he had another tour with Pancho Gonzalez and also toured with Cooper and Anderson.

Hoad was obviously a great physical specimen who could inspire awe with his almost inhuman shotmaking. Was his best better than anyone else? Possibly but we cannot ever prove that. However the fact I think it is a possibility show how talented I believe he was. I would not write that about Djokovic for example or Federer although I think they are very talented players. But it begs the question was the reason that he reached these great levels also a function of his high risk style and perhaps others like perhaps a Frankie Kovacs could have reached these heights if they played the same sort of high risk style. Bobby Riggs for example thought Kovacs' best was arguably the best and some others also believe that.

It's clear in majors that Hoad was not invincible. In classic majors he was 2-2 with his rival Ken Rosewall and he had poor record in the Pro Majors. To be fair I believe he was perhaps past his best when he reached the finals of the Pro Majors in the 1960's.

Click to expand...

I agree.

But Hoad also lost several pro majors' finals when he was in his prime (French Pro 1958, US Pro 1958 and 1959 and even lost a couple of matches before reaching the final (Wembley 1957, 1959, French pro 1959)...

Following McCauley and PC1 for 1959 i have added 32-15 (25-14) in tournament play (including 3rd and 5th place play offs) plus 42-20 in the World Series plus an unknown number of matches in a France tour with Sedgman, Rosewall, Trabert, which Trabert won. In another tour through Europe he won 11-16 (?). For the year it would be 74-35 or 67-34, if we include the latter tour 85-50. As we have discussed earlier, the percentage is good for the hard competition (always top contenders) on the pro tour, but not overwhelming.

Following McCauley and PC1 for 1959 i have added 32-15 (25-14) in tournament play (including 3rd and 5th place play offs) plus 42-20 in the World Series plus an unknown number of matches in a France tour with Sedgman, Rosewall, Trabert, which Sedgman won. For the year it would be 74-35 or 67-34. As we have discussed earlier, the percentage is good for the hard competition (always top contenders) on the pro tour, but not overwhelming.

Imo Hoad is the only guy who could be legitimate GOAT without focusing too much on records.So terrific was his peak and Rosewall and Gonzalezknew ot

Click to expand...

That's always been the question with Lew Hoad. For one match he very well close have been the GOAT but it is debatable. Yet at the same time there has been an argument that if there was a tournament in which the losers would have to jump off a bridge, then perhaps the winner would be Pancho Gonzalez because in do or die match Gonzalez may reach the highest level.

So what do we look at for GOAT? Hoad obviously has wonderful credentials as a great player and the opinions of players who have played or people who have seen him viewed him with awe but there are also experts like Jack Kramer who felt Hoad was overrated because of his inconsistency in playing level.

Objectively the total career accomplishments of some like Laver and Rosewall surpass Hoad easily. I don't think Hoad can stand up to some in career accomplishment. So we have to look at peak level of play and look at Hoad's best years.

Consistency is important in evaluating greatness but you also have to look at peak level. That's always the problem with evaluating Lew Hoad.

1. Lew Hoad (Aus) - Contested six major finals, winning four - including two Wimbledons - during a brief amateur career before turning professional. Ranked No. 1 in the world in 1956 when he won three of four slams. Strengths: "Power, volleying and explosiveness."

1. Lew Hoad (Aus) - Contested six major finals, winning four - including two Wimbledons - during a brief amateur career before turning professional. Ranked No. 1 in the world in 1956 when he won three of four slams. Strengths: "Power, volleying and explosiveness."

Pancho and Rocket agree. Hoad was the BOAT.

Click to expand...

From now on we should use the term BOAT because I'm getting sick of using the term GOAT.

It's interesting that they agree by the way since they both had winning records against him. I would tend to think that they both (Gonzalez and Laver) thought of themselves as the BOAT.

Do you have any information on Hoad's head to heads against the top player in the Old Pro Tour when he was at his peak?

From simple heresay Kramer for example said Hoad lost most of the time to Segura but Kramer has been known to be incorrect. I'm certain he lost most of his matches to Gonzalez but what about some of the others?

But Hoad also lost several pro majors' finals when he was in his prime (French Pro 1958, US Pro 1958 and 1959 and even lost a couple of matches before reaching the final (Wembley 1957, 1959, French pro 1959)...

Click to expand...

Incidentally I was remiss in not writing that overall Hoad was 4-2 on classic majors finals.

Do you have any information on Hoad's head to heads against the top player in the Old Pro Tour when he was at his peak?

From simple heresay Kramer for example said Hoad lost most of the time to Segura but Kramer has been known to be incorrect. I'm certain he lost most of his matches to Gonzalez but what about some of the others?

Click to expand...

pc1,

I don't know the balances of Hoad as a pro.

I believe that Kramer meant only the 1957 4 man tour where Segura had the edge against Hoad.

And I know that Hoad and Rosewall were 14:14 in December 1957 (only pro matches)

I do know that generally (amateur and pro) Hoad was 59:83 against his buddy Rosewall. But also here some matches seem to be missing.

Can someone give the known numbers of Hoad for 1959, not selective results but all tournaments played plus the main hth tours? From what i have read in other threads, he did well considering the strong opposition, but wasn't dominant. It seems, that all the top contenders in 1959, Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall and even Sedgman were pretty close, and indeed the contemporary rankings by Kramer, Anderson and other promoters and players were anything but unanimous. If i am right, then Hoad ranked from 1 to 4, regarding the rankings, and mostly Gonzalez was ranked Nr. 1.

Click to expand...

The "selective" results were drawn together as they represent the Ampol World Championship Tour, designed to determine the overall world champion. Thus, the top pros concentrated their efforts on winning these 14 tournaments. That is why they have been collected, and they show that Hoad dominated, 34 wins against 13 losses.
Together with a 42-20 record on the American pro championship tour, Hoad's overall record for the two world championships is 76 wins and 33 losses, an overwhelming lead over the other players.
Yes, I consider this a greater year for Hoad in 1959 than Laver's numbers in 1969, considering the differences in the quality of the respective fields.

I think that Joe McCauley has given almost all events. An exception are those few (4 man) tournaments of (probably) July when Rosewall beat Gonzalez twice.

I guess that Dan is the first and only man who ranked Hoad first for 1959...

Click to expand...

No, in Anderson's account of the 1959 season in World Tennis magazine, the official publication of World Tennis Inc., Kramer's organization, he lists the final results of the world championship tour, as I have, with Hoad first and Gonzales second.
It might be well for you to realize that 14 tournaments were designated to constitute the world championship, and these events show Hoad overwhelming the field.

Just some information on Hoad's year of 1959 in which he had another tour with Pancho Gonzalez and also toured with Cooper and Anderson.

Click to expand...

Again, you have not indicated any awareness (neither did McCauley) of the Ampol World Championship Tour, which was constituted by 14 of the tournaments.
Some people can neglect the most basic facts.
The schedule concluded with the Kooyong event in Jan 1-7 1960.

But Hoad also lost several pro majors' finals when he was in his prime (French Pro 1958, US Pro 1958 and 1959 and even lost a couple of matches before reaching the final (Wembley 1957, 1959, French pro 1959)...

Click to expand...

At Roland Garros in 1958, Hoad led Rosewall in the final, but wrenched his back reaching for a ball.
The "US Pro" was not a major event by any standard.
Wembley did not rate inclusion in the top 14 designated tournaments for 1959.

I am not battling with Lobb anymore. It's fruitless. Let's just write about Hoad and Kodes instead.

Click to expand...

Strange, PC1, you asked me to compile the records for the Ampol series, I took some time and trouble to do that, and then you refuse to comment on the results.
I guess the results I provided you with were too much to handle.